Thoughts on Film vs Digital

I do love the convenience of picking up the Nikon P-300, putting it in my pocket, snapping a couple of pictures whenever I want and immediately seeing the results. I can also upload them to the blog or where ever I want or need them, all within minutes if I so choose.

Here’s a couple shots I took with it to prove that we do indeed have Fall colors in South Louisiana. Of course, of the 50+ trees on the property this is the only one showing Fall colors.

This one was shot at f3.7, 1/400 and ISO 160.

This one was shot at f3.3, 1/1600, and ISO 160.

Why the P-300 program chose those particular settings is somewhat of a mystery to me but the pictures came out pretty good.

Had I been shooting ISO 400 film (I really like the Kodak Portra 400) in my 35 mm SLR, I probably would have taken the shots at 1/250 or 1/500 and varied the aperture from about f6 to f12 to suit the available lighting situation. The smaller aperture would have given better depth of field but the Nikon did okay considering it was set for full auto (photography for idiots) mode.

There is little danger of me switching completely over to digital however. In my opinion (and that of many others, including some professionals) there is really no comparison between film and digital. To even approach the kind of results I get with my 35mm using digital camera technology I would have to spend many times what I have invested in my cameras & lenses. Besides, the whole approach and philosophy of digital photography is completely different than with analog photography.

When I shoot my digital camera I just keep shooting until I get what I want and rarely if ever take just one or two shots. With analog I plot and plan, wait patiently for the exact right moment and then take “The Shot.” I can’t think of any clever analogies. It’s just two very different ways of taking pictures.